Appeal No. 2003-0693
Application No. 09/006,248
appellants’ claimed subject matter. However, as our court of
review indicated in In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d
1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992), it is impermissible to use the claimed
invention as an instruction manual or “template” in attempting to
piece together isolated disclosures and teachings of the prior art
so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.
(4) The § 103 rejection of claims 25, 27 and 46
We do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 25, 27 and 46
as being unpatentable over Dailey in view of Hayes, Vachtsevanos,
Herbermann ‘309, Larsson, Blatt ‘276 and Giern.
The discussion found in our treatment of rejection (3)
applies. Further, Giern’s teaching of a C-shaped clamp ring 19 for
a lockable ball joint does not overcome the deficiencies of the
other references applied in the rejection. Simply put, the
rejection is based on the use of impermissible hindsight.
(5) The first § 103 rejection of claims 29, 31, 33 and 41
We sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 29, 31, 33 and 41 as
being unpatentable over Herbermann ‘097 in view of Blatt ‘556 and
Kraft.
Herbermann ‘097 pertains to a system for mounting suction
tools 26 and 28 along a cross bar 22. The cross bar is of the type
that can move vertically and horizontally to reposition a workpiece
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007